In order to promote "spiritual genocide" one would first have to accept the existence of something "spiritual" which can be killed. Now, I won't say that secularists must necessarily be opposed to spirituality, generally, I will say that either a secularist denies the existence of the spiritual (and therefore cannot promote its genocide) or accepts the existence of the spiritual and is a promoter of it (think: New Age Hippies that don't believe in a "god" but still believe in "spirits" and other such nonsense).

The third option: a secularist that believes in the spiritual and actively wishes to kill it, doesn't exist in reality. Since such secularists don't exist, neither can there exist an organization of such secularists with a doctrine of extinguishing the spiritual (whether or not it is appropriate to label such an organization as a religion).

Secularism generally isn't religious, but isn't necessarily. When I was transitioning between religion to irreligion, I had a moment believing religion is no different to political ideology, and didn't think it should be treated much differently.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Secularism generally isn't religious, but isn't necessarily. When I was transitioning between religion to irreligion, I had a moment believing religion is no different to political ideology, and didn't think it should be treated much differently.

Though to make it clear, it usually is, and it's probably fair to generalise it as such.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.